{"id":56512,"date":"2025-07-24T10:42:14","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T05:12:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=56512"},"modified":"2025-07-24T10:42:14","modified_gmt":"2025-07-24T05:12:14","slug":"presidential-reference-can-the-supreme-court-clarify-past-rulings","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/presidential-reference-can-the-supreme-court-clarify-past-rulings\/","title":{"rendered":"Presidential Reference: Can the Supreme Court Clarify Past Rulings?"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Presidential Reference Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Recently, the Supreme Court issued notices to the Centre and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether courts can compel the President and Governors to act within specified timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, will begin detailed hearings by mid-August.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Background of the Case: SC\u2019s April Verdict Under Scrutiny<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Reference was made under Article 143 of the Constitution after President Droupadi Murmu submitted 14 questions following the Court\u2019s April 2025 judgment.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That ruling, delivered in a case brought by the Tamil Nadu government, held that Governor R.N. Ravi\u2019s delay in assenting to ten re-passed State Bills was illegal.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this judgment, the apex court, for the first time, imposed judicially enforceable timelines on both Governors and the President.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The current Reference seeks clarity on whether courts can direct constitutional authorities on how and when to act.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Scope and Significance of the Supreme Court\u2019s Advisory Jurisdiction<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Article 143(1)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of the Indian Constitution allows the President to seek the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion on legal or factual matters of significant public importance, even if no case is pending in court.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This advisory power, <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">inspired by the Government of India Act, 1935<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, has been used at least 14 times since Independence.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court\u2019s role in such cases is limited strictly to the questions raised in the Presidential Reference and cannot go beyond them.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Although debated in the Constituent Assembly over concerns of political misuse, the provision was retained to help resolve constitutional deadlocks.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To safeguard its use, <\/span><b>Article 145(3) mandates that such References must be heard by a Constitution Bench of at least five judges<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Supreme Court\u2019s Discretion to Decline Presidential References<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">While Article 143(1) empowers the President to seek the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion, the Court is not bound to respond in every case.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It holds <\/span><b>discretionary authority to decline a Reference<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, as clarified in the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Special Courts Bill<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> case (1978), which interpreted the term \u201cmay\u201d in Article 143 as conferring such discretion.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, if the Court chooses not to give an opinion, it must record its reasons.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This was reaffirmed in <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1994), where the Court held that References involving expert evidence or political questions may be declined.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Notably, in 1993, the Court refused to answer a Reference on the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute due to the ongoing civil case and concerns of constitutional impropriety.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Similarly, in 1982, the Court did not respond to a Reference on a proposed law related to resettlement of migrants in Jammu and Kashmir, as the law was enacted before the Court could intervene.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">These cases underscore the Court\u2019s cautious approach in maintaining its judicial integrity and avoiding political entanglement.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Nature of Supreme Court\u2019s Advisory Opinions<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>The binding nature of the Supreme Court\u2019s advisory opinions remains debated<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 141 makes only the \u201claw declared\u201d by the Court binding on all courts, and in <\/span><b><i>St. Xavier\u2019s College v. State of Gujarat<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1974), the Court clarified <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">that advisory opinions are not binding precedents but hold persuasive value<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Still, some rulings, like <\/span><b><i>R.K. Garg v. Union of India<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1981), treated the reasoning in advisory opinions as binding, despite earlier caveats.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The ambiguity continued in the <\/span><b><i>Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal<\/i><\/b><b> case<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (1991), where the Court acknowledged advisory opinions as deserving \u201cdue weight and respect\u201d but stopped short of declaring them binding.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As of now, any opinion from the current Presidential Reference will not override the binding April 2025 ruling delivered under the Court\u2019s adjudicatory powers.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, such an opinion will likely influence ongoing and future related cases, including those involving Kerala and Punjab.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Scope of Supreme Court\u2019s Power to Modify April 2025 Verdict via Presidential Reference<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court has clearly stated in past rulings, such as in the <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> case, that <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Article 143 cannot be used by the executive to overturn or review a settled judicial decision<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Once the Court has authoritatively ruled on a matter under its adjudicatory jurisdiction, there is no room for doubt that would justify a Presidential Reference.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The only valid method to <\/span><b>challenge such a decision is through review or curative petitions<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">However, the Court has also held, notably in the <\/span><b><i>Natural Resources Allocation<\/i><\/b><b> case (2012),<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> that under Article 143(1), <\/span><b>it may clarify or restate legal principles without disturbing the core decision or affecting parties\u2019 rights<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Similarly, in 1998, <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">a Presidential Reference led to modifications in the collegium system without invalidating the original 1993 judgment<\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hence, while the April 2025 ruling remains final and binding, the current Reference may be used to clarify or elaborate on its legal reasoning.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">With 14 questions raised\u2014some going beyond the April ruling\u2014the Constitution Bench may provide broader constitutional interpretations without undoing the earlier judgment.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Source:<\/b> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/news\/national\/can-the-supreme-courts-opinion-on-a-presidential-reference-alter-its-prior-ruling\/article69837501.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">TH<\/span><\/a><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> | <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/supreme-court-president-reference-timeline-assent-bills-10137013\/lite\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">IE<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Explore how Article 143 empowers the President to seek SC opinions and whether it can refine past rulings like the April 2025 verdict.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":56530,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[60,564,22,59],"class_list":{"0":"post-56512","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"tag-mains-articles","9":"tag-presidential-reference","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56512","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=56512"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/56512\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56530"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=56512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=56512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=56512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}